Guest Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 A bigger disaster for DVDs is all the a-holes that pirate DVDs and make the content available for FREE! But that is another story. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I personally don't see the Indy content being any worse then it was in previous years. I just see MORE Indy content being made, making it harder for the good one's to stick out. And that. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 22, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 22, 2017 A bigger disaster for DVDs is all the a-holes that pirate DVDs and make the content available for FREE! But that is another story. Honestly, I'm pretty up to speed on the piracy situation. If piracy does play a role in the decimation of the DVD/BluRay market (which I don't think it does at all), it's a very small percentile. One fun fact that people don't realize is; the piracy community is built upon laziness. These aren't people who would leave their house and watch your movie anyway. These aren't people who have netflix or Amazon video and choose NOT to watch content on those sites. These are people who separate themselves from the system entirely. The "industry" wants you to think piracy is a huge problem, but it's very tricky to pirate these days. Internet providers have gotten smarter about what ports torrent files use. Most on-demand pirate sites are full of add's and look like crap. The VAST majority of people who watch content, aren't going to deal with those issues in order to get it. They're going to go through the proper channels and they will pay for it. The fact 2016 was the highest box office receipts for decades, really shows piracy has zero effect on theatrical. The big problem is just availability of content. Most people simply want to watch something, they WILL PAY if it's available. The problem is, due to fighting in the industry (especially telco/cable/satellite), content accessibility has become difficult around the world. This is an environment where piracy can grow and it's the industries own damn fault. If they want to stop piracy dead in it's tracks, they would band together and put their fighting/differences aside and have a pay service that offered everything. Consumers would pay a flat rate per month for access. There would be commercials prior and post the show that were not stoppable or forward-able. It would insure people WERE actually watching those commercials instead of fast forwarding through them on their DVR. If they charged $30 - $50/month, people could cut their satellite and cable, only have internet and not need anything else. Thus, the total cost of watching content for the consumer would drop tremendously AND there would be FAR greater viewership. Imagine if 150 million people paid $30/month. That's 4.5 billion a month, thats 54 BILLION a year! That's less then HALF the population of the US and that's A LOT of money. Put add revenue in there and the revenue from buying set-top boxes designed for the service, you've got 60 - 70 billion dollar business. If only companies would work together... it's a pipe dream, but it's the ONLY WAY to stop piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 There's an old saying Tyler, nothing beats free. I find it hilarious that people think it's ok for Walmart to prosecute someone stealing a DVD from the store, but think it's fine for someone to download the movie for free and steal it that way. There are also the people that sell bootlegged DVDs at flea markets all over North America. There is an entire community set up to rip off and create store copy looking packaging art. I even had an overseas distributor ask me where they could get a particular DVD jacket they saw on-line, I had to tell them…..that's bootleg art!!!! One day I will happen upon one of these little operations, and if I find them selling my products, I'll just take all the DVDs and challenge them to call the police! Once you produce a feature film Tyler, your view on this will shift. Suddenly you'll realize that people are stealing from you, and you won't like it. Right now, you're not losing any income from a film. Each week I have to send take down notices to those SOBs at YouTube. Of course YouTube maintains, well you can't sue us, only the person who uploads it. HA! They are happy to make ad revenue from the thousands of pirated movies sitting on their website! Same with ebay, they are making millions in commissions from the sale of bootlegged DVDs, and they see nothing wrong with it. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 22, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 22, 2017 It's not theft if you aren't deprived of anything. We've had this discussion before. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 It's not theft if you aren't deprived of anything. We've had this discussion before. P Yes, and you're still wrong. Because it is theft. Not sure if you know this Phil, but there are now companies dedicated to tracking down the downloaders and making them pay for stealing movies via free download. They get the records from internet providers, use the courts, and then split the fee with the producer. I have signed up for one of these services. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 I'm in charge of a very heavily stolen archive of documentary films. We deal with people using the material from my archive in other projects on a DAILY basis. This includes, illegal DVD duplication, youtube/vimeo and even within videos they made. Does it hurt our bottom line? NO it doesn't do anything to our bottom line. In fact, we have garnished quite a lot of sales from poop being out there. Since we only sell direct to consumers, we talk to each of them and we always ask how they've heard of our products. More then 50% of the time, it's from a video they saw online that WE didn't post. My boss still fights to get the stuff taken down, but he wastes so much time doing so, he COULD be out making more movies. He doesn't see the benefit in the sales numbers that I do. Now... I'm disgusted with people making money illegally of other's copyrighted works. Those are called "bootlegs" and it's an entirely different business because now you've got physical assets that the police can use against you in a court of law. But people copy everything from books to paintings, from music to movies. The Chinese and Russians have no recourse, so it's a heavily popular thing to do in those nations and it trickles down to us. So yes, "bootleggers" need to be stopped, but cops turn a blind eye to a lot of them. It costs the state A LOT of money to fight them and even if they do, it doesn't stop anything. Another person will pickup right where they left off. I have physically seen this first hand, cops walking up to bootleggers and not taking them into custody. Literally turning a blind eye to the business because they know, there is nothing they can do. If people stopped killing each other, stopped running their vehicles into one anther, stopped hitting and causing domestic abuse, the cops may crack down on bootleggers. Until then, they've got more important things to do then worry about a poor guy who makes $20 bux a day off selling stolen movies. Think of it another way, do you honestly think that person spending $3.00 on a bootleg version of your movie, from the streets of NEW YORK, would buy your $19.99 DVD/BluRay? No, they wouldn't. Do you honestly think the fat kid eating a bag of cheeto's and drinking coke as he plays computer games, is really going to get off his ass and watch your movie in the theater? No he won't. So again... how do YOU loose? Your movie is watched by more people then it ever would be. Not saying those actions are "right" what so ever, they are WRONG, completely and utterly wrong. But THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! Piracy and Bootlegging will ALWAYS be an issue and it always HAS been an issue. Lock'em up, throw away the key, but a good hacker will always win in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Does it hurt our bottom line? NO it doesn't do anything to our bottom line. In fact, we have garnished quite a lot of sales from poop being out there. While I'd agree that piracy doesn't do all that much to the big beefy film studios, I can definitely see how it impacts a smaller production company (not sure where Richard's business falls in the grand scheme of things). Acts even as small as plagiarism can hurt a creator if they're small enough (lack of reach means lack of means). I feel it's more based on how stable the victim of "theft" is, rather than the act of theft itself. End of the day, no one is going into a DVD store and running out with a physical copy. I believe Louis Theroux outlined that the porn industry was demolished by piracy, and that was from certain circumstances an industry like that finds itself in. Free advertising is a myth for more people than not. Edited January 23, 2017 by Macks Fiiod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 do you honestly think that person spending $3.00 on a bootleg version of your movie, from the streets of NEW YORK, would buy your $19.99 DVD/BluRay? No, they wouldn't. The $3 they spent on a bootleg is $3 they don't spend on renting via VOD. Theft is Theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 I'm not sure I'd characterise piracy as useful publicity. However, the point remains (regardless of what Richard wants to be true) that very few instances of piracy are likely to represent lost sales. As such nothing is lost and, by any reasonable definition of theft, no theft takes place. I'm not here to speak up for piracy, but the sort of high-pitched squealing emitted by the Jack Valentis and Richard Boddingtons of the world can do nothing to help the situation. You can't make a reasonable stand against something using arguments which are obviously wrong. Nobody will take them seriously. Well, actually,given who's currently in the white house and his behaviour, we clearly live in something of a post-truth society, but you rely on that at your peril. In light of the lacklustre response to mass internet piracy, most people, and most world governments, aren't taking those obviously wrong argumentagainst at all seriously. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 The $3 they spent on a bootleg is $3 they don't spend on renting via VOD. Theft is Theft. What if they don't have basic cable services? People with money, don't bootleg. They have no reason to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 I feel it's more based on how stable the victim of "theft" is, rather than the act of theft itself. Which is absolutely true. I've had lots of clips stolen from my videos and re-arranged to make other videos. I've been upset and peeved they'd do that, but the internet is out of control and I get that. I understand the benefits and detractors. Generally I won't put anything online, I'm not scared will be stolen and re-purposed. End of the day, no one is going into a DVD store and running out with a physical copy. Right, but it doesn't matter. When Blockbuster had 9000 stores, it DID matter. That was close to a million dollars in revenue just from those stores. Since the early 2000's, there has been a steady decline as content has become worse and the big blockbusters, stealing all the limelight. Instead of there being 50 movies a year worth watching, there are now more like 5 - 10. So the revenue for all the little guys, just doesn't exist anymore. So the thought that someone who buys a $3.00 bootleg is taking $3.00 profits away from the asset owner, is a fallacy. If that $3.00 bootleg never existed, they would simply not see the movie. I believe Louis Theroux outlined that the porn industry was demolished by piracy No, it was demolished by porn websites. I'm one of those strange guys who's not at all into porn. However, from what I've read, the industry died because of the internet and computers make the perfect porn watching devices. Ya don't really need a plot line... LOL Free advertising is a myth for more people than not. Meh... you'd be surprised. I'm not going to incriminate myself or my friends, but I have reason for what I say. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 If you have to intellectualize an argument against your own conscience, then you're likely doing something wrong. I have a handful of friends that pirate everything they watch. Just because they're willing to waste two hours of their time to watch something they wouldn't pay to waste two hours of their time for, doesn't mean they're not wasting their time without paying. Which means that product was worth something to them. It was worth their time. They consume without contributing. They're thieves and I tell them so. Of course they laugh at me when I call them thieves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 They're thieves and I tell them so. Justin, you're an actual filmmaker, so you understand this from the filmmakers POV. I have yet to find even one single filmmaker, a person that actually MAKES films, in favour of pirating content or defending those that do. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 It was worth their time. They consume without contributing. This. Exactly this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 What if they don't have basic cable services? People with money, don't bootleg. They have no reason to. They don't need basic cable. If they can afford an internet connection, they can afford Netflix. In any case, since when was not being able to afford something an excuse for stealing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 They don't need basic cable. If they can afford an internet connection, they can afford Netflix. You'd think so... but that's only if the content they wish to watch is on Netflix... most of which is NOT. In any case, since when was not being able to afford something an excuse for stealing it? Not an excuse... but it's the reason many people steal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 If you have to intellectualize an argument against your own conscience, then you're likely doing something wrong. I have a handful of friends that pirate everything they watch. Just because they're willing to waste two hours of their time to watch something they wouldn't pay to waste two hours of their time for, doesn't mean they're not wasting their time without paying. Which means that product was worth something to them. It was worth their time. They consume without contributing. They're thieves and I tell them so. Yea, but, again they wouldn't have watched it otherwise... as in, the "filmmaker" or "studio" would have never seen their money. It's one thing to have someone very excited to watch something and download a handycam torrent of a theater capture way before the movie is even available on home video. It's another for someone to be intrigued about something, download it after it's been amortized and wind up enjoying it. Think of it a different way. I use to buy and sell used laserdisc's, right when DVD's first hit the market. I'd buy low and sell high. I made a profit off of the video's I sold and not a penny went back to the distributor/studio, yet it was 100% legal because I had a physical asset. If that asset changed hands 20 times before it was thrown away, each one of it's owners will have had the asset in hand and recouped their investment, meaning they watched the asset for free, without a penny going to the filmmakers. Think of it a different way. I rent a red box DVD and have 5 friends over to watch the movie. They aren't paying me for the viewing, yet 6 of us watched it. That's completely legal and only the viewing for ONE PERSON went back to the filmmaker... which is like 15 cents. Think of it a different way. For 30+ years, theaters would string one print through multiple theaters in order to avoid paying distribution fee's on multiple prints of the same movies. This was such a widely done thing, most projection booths had permanent rollers/guides in the ceiling. The studio's didn't make a DIME on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th screening from that ONE print. I could go on all night about people "cheating" the system and it's NOT DIFFERENT then downloading online. Ohh and P.S. Richard... when I become a more successful filmmaker and control the rights to my work. I will personally put my movies on the torrents AFTER they've been amortized. Why? Because I know a lot of people wouldn't see my movies otherwise and I'd rather them SEE IT, then not. To me movies are more then just entertainment, they should move people and reveal something about themselves. This is more important to me then the simple financial aspects. As long as my investors aren't hurt, I'm cool with giving it away to a small group of people for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 In any case, since when was not being able to afford something an excuse for stealing it? If someone steals food or medicine because can't live otherwise, that is an reasonable excuse I think. But one does not need movies to live and the persons who pirate them usually COULD afford Netflix or even purchase a physical copy, it is just the attitude that some entertainment should be free for them even if it costs huge amount of money to make that content. If the movie would have been easy to purchase/rent the legal way then there is no excuse to not to do so. It may be a bit different with films which are not distributed at all in the region one lives, if there is no legal copy available at all then one may need to watch the pirated version because there is nothing else... I never upload anything to youtube which I know I don't want to be stolen immediately. it is part of that community to steal other person's work and make compilations/"new content" out of it, then get some cash from the ad revenues. Google does little to stop this... it would be much easier if there would be no ads in the videos so there would be no financial benefits to keep the stolen content online. A very big and ugly watermark helps a lot, it may also help if you use very short images like 1 or 1.5 seconds which cannot easily be used in compilations or as a background image in lyrics videos etc <_< Vimeo is easier this way, it mostly lacks the "video mix" culture and the videos are more respected in their original form without the eager Movie Maker users immediately making their own stupid versions out of them :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 I think this would be an easier argument to win if it were possible to watch video on demand without a contact. Who's going to bother going through the signup process for Netflix and pay about £16 when a simple Google for "watch against the wild" will have you watch the film in seconds? That's more money than buying the Blu-ray. Even beyond that, there's the issue of figuring out what's actually available on Netflix, which is essentially a secret until you sign up. Yes, there's a free month (once), but really, I need my financial details in the hands of yet another online company like I need a superfluous third nipple. It is possible to buy individual films from YouTube, but the prices for watch-forever access are far from competitive. Again, I'm not particularly speaking up for piracy here, but it's certainly the case that the movie industry could make it a lot more attractive to buy things. Some sort of downloadable file, playable on a wide variety of platforms and non-revokable, like a DVD, paid via PayPal, is hardly too much to ask. The model here is something like the Steam platform for games distribution. Every time they make Steam cheaper and easier, they make massively more money, to the point where there's been genuine concern about setting undesirable precedents on game pricing - but they keep doing it, because it's so profitable. I think the film industry will eventually work this out, and will look back on this period with regret for its own problem-seeking intransigence. Moviemaking in general is currently losing far more money to its own unwillingness to adopt a more reasonable business model than it is to piracy. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Justin, you're an actual filmmaker, so you understand this from the filmmakers POV. I have yet to find even one single filmmaker, a person that actually MAKES films, in favour of pirating content or defending those that do. R, Well aren't the filmmakers you're talking to generally going to be successful enough to be making more than $20k a year? Many piracy advocates will simply perform said task when their financial situation outweighs their respect for the craft. Entertainment prevents the people who run our labor infrastructure from killing themselves, could piracy be mental Obamacare?? I remember seeing a Drake album (signed to major label) on PirateBay a week after it dropped, the comments section had multiple users saying things like "need to hear now will cop on pay day". Has anyone else seen this with films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 Entertainment prevents the people who run our labor infrastructure from killing themselves, could piracy be mental Obamacare?? It's true that art and entertainment is somewhat needed to maintain mental health, especially if person's job is very repetative+boring+unsatisfying. But piracy is not a good solution for that... the more there is affordable easy-to-use legal platforms for watching content, the more piracy decreases when "normal people" choose to use the easier and safer legal channels for content viewing. here in Finland they started a campaign last year where a private law firm tries to catch torrent users and charges them a "standard compensation fee" of about 600€ so that they can avoid prosecution. A person can take the case to the court but the legal expenses can easily be 10 - 20 000 € so most people just get scared and pay for company to avoid personal bankruptcy, it seems to be that the content producers count on that actually to got easy money from them. I think a similar approach is used in some other countries also, including the US? this kind of "Stasi approach" is very bad publicity for the content producers I think and should only be used as a last resort if nothing else works. easy to use and affordable online platforms could reduce piracy in the western countries to almost zero I think but instead they choose to scare people to silent like some kind of mafia :blink: weird times :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Ohh and P.S. Richard... when I become a more successful filmmaker and control the rights to my work. I will personally put my movies on the torrents AFTER they've been amortized. Why? Because I know a lot of people wouldn't see my movies otherwise and I'd rather them SEE IT, then not. To me movies are more then just entertainment, they should move people and reveal something about themselves. This is more important to me then the simple financial aspects. As long as my investors aren't hurt, I'm cool with giving it away to a small group of people for free. You realize you'll be violating the very the distribution agreements that you'll be signing to get your film into proper commercial distribution to monetize it? The distribution contracts you sign will be for 25 years, so if you do this before the 25 year term is up, you'll be in violation of the contract. Once word gets out that you do this, good luck getting another distribution deal, word will spread this is how you feel about torrents and no one will touch you after that. If you think producers dislike the free downloading, talk to a distributor, they hate it 100X more! R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 The problem is, Richard, most of us are fully aware that if we ever made a feature the chances of getting it into any sort of conventional distribution channel are so vanishingly remote that your concerns seem fairly theoretical. Where I'm from, feature films simply cannot be distributed, regardless of their quality. Put it online and at least people watch it. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted January 23, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2017 I rent a red box DVD and have 5 friends over to watch the movie. They aren't paying me for the viewing, yet 6 of us watched it. That's completely legal Buying a lawn mower and lending it to your neighbor is not the same as stealing a lawn mower and lending it to your neighbor. And lawn mowers cost a lot less to make than a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now